Hon’ble Vijay Lakshmi, J.—This intra-Court appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 8.10.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Habeas corpus Writ Petition No. 12616 of 2014 (Amal Irfa v. State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has directed the appellant, who is the father of corpus-little girl Amal Irfa to hand over her custody to her mother Mrs. Shaista Anjum at the earliest and not later than 15th October, 2014.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent Mrs. Shaista Anjum has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this special appeal on the ground that the proceedings in writ of habeas corpus are criminal in nature, so special appeal against it is not maintainable in view of provision of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules which specifically bars special appeal against an order of single judge passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the special appeal is maintainable against such order and that is why the Stamp Reporter has not reported anything against its maintainability.

4. We have heard learned counsel from both the sides on the point of maintainability of this special appeal.

5. The writ jurisdiction is an extra ordinary jurisdiction providing a constitutional remedy for enforcement of not only fundamental rights but also for enforcement of any legal right whether civil, criminal, administrative or relating to personal laws. Right to appeal is a statutory right and a person can invoke such right if it is so provided by Statute.

6. Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 which is reproduced below, provides for special appeal :

“5. Special appeal—An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment {not being a judgment passed in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of Superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of Appellate or Revisional Jurisdiction under any such Act} of one Judge.”

7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that a special appeal will not lie when:

1. the judgment passed by one Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court;

2. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction;

3. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of the power of superintendence of the High Court;

4. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction;

5. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or award by the tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India;

6. the order made by one Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any judgment, order or awar